Advent

For an above- decent article on Advent, go here.

Here is an excerpt from the article that struck me in particular:
"I don't remember this opposition of Christmas and the Christmas season when I was young. When I was little—ah, the nostalgia of the childhood memoir—I always felt that the days right before Christmas were a time somehow out of time. Christmas Eve, especially, and the arrival of Christmas itself at midnight: The hours moved in ways different from their passage in ordinary time, and the sense of impending completion was somehow like a flavor even to the air we breathed."


The above quote strikes me because I have been thinking about how religious folk and non-religious folk think about time. Modern history is very linear. However, the Biblical and Christian view of time is that there are times that are "high times" which connect us in a mystical way with things that have happened either in the past or will happen in the future, or both. Modern understandings of time have been stripped of mystery, or their attachment to something or Someone beyond time. The above quote helps me to remember and to celebrate the high times, especially this Advent and Christmas. I encourage you to read the above quote again.

Grace and Peace,
Andrew

Quotes Along The Narrow Way

"Most want to possess the kingdom without labors and struggles and sweat, but this is impossible."
-Psuedo-Macarius (Homily 5, section 6; circa 380C.E.)

"That in which a man rests as in his last end, is master of his affections, since he takes therefrom his entire rule of life."
-St. Thomas Aquinas

"As we make progress in Him, through our way of life - in faith, in discipline, in virtue, and in community - our hearts will expand with the inexpressible sweetness of love; with hope we shall run together along the path of God's grace and commandments and we shall share in his divine life and his glorious kingdom."
-Adapted from the Prologue to the Rule of Saint Benedict.

"Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord;
seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.
For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,
and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,
and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.
For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins.
Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;
for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you."
- 2 Peter 1. 1-11

Thoughts on Hauerwas' Sermon, A Glimpse At The City Of God, "Open Theology" Blown Wide Open, and J. Wesley on Religious Nuts and Libertines

I have not had much work lately. This is good news for you and partial good news for me, as it has given me reading and pondering time. Therefore, there is an exciting lineup of topics in this entry.
(Possible good news for me: there is a chance that I will be getting a job teaching ESL come January.)
I would suggest reading all articles this week, but not all in one sitting. (I say weekly because I will try to post weekly... on either a Friday, Saturday or Sunday every week).
I apologize for the length. I know that some are busy and some are lazy.

In This Issue:
1) Comments And Thoughts on Hauerwas' Sermon On The Badness Of The Reformation
2) A Glimpse At The City Of God
3) D.A Carson: "Open Theology" Blown Wide Open
4) J. Wesley on Religious Nuts and Libertines

1) Comments And Thoughts on Hauerwas' Sermon On The Badness Of The Reformation
In my last blog entry I drew attention to Stanley Hauerwas' Reformation Sunday (29 Oct, 1995) sermon on the why the Reformation was not so positive. In the sermon, Hauerwas, who is an Protestant, was critical of the Reformation and argued that the effects were more negative than positive. Actually, I'm not even sure if Hauerwas made one positive remark about the Reformation. This does not matter very much to me.
After reading Hauerwas' sermon, a friend of mine drew attention to the fact that Hauerwas was far too critical of the Reformation, because there have been very many good effects (such as the reformation of the Catholic Church, Christianity becoming more enlivened; all in all, a less corrupt Christian society).
I took a stance in between, agreeing with my friend that the Reformation has been very beneficial in many regards, but that we should be critical of it (especially as Protestants, who naturally want to view it in a positive light).
However, it must be asked: would the benefits of the Reformation been achieved without the Reformation, a little more patience, etc.? It must also be asked whether or not the long term results of the Reformation have been that good. My current position is realistic, in that we cannot turn back the clock. But I am also more critical than my previous fence-sitting position.
For instance, consider this important quote from Charles Taylor's monumental book about how the modern secular society came to be, A Secular Age: "True, it [the Reformation] reacts to another period of shocking laxity and corruption in high ecclesiastical places, but the Catholic Church it rejected had itself been the locus of reform efforts for several centuries..." (P. 243ff)
An important point that I take from this both is and is not Taylor's point. From this quote it is shown that, in the history of the Church, that reformation and renewal has always been important. From monks to confronting heresy and more, the Church has always been seeking godliness through types of reform. For the most part, though, these had happened inside the church walls. To be more blunt: If one of the driving forces within the Church is repentance, by which a person seeks unity within themselves (i.e. purity, holiness, etc.), then wasn't a less violent, lowercase 'r', reformation worth hoping for and being patient for? However, I concede that there are times when repentance must, in a way, cause violence within ourselves, which is obvious in the case of a drug addict bravely resisting powerful cravings.
As we know, much blood was spilled over the Reformation, many hard lines were drawn, great, though dwindling unity became discord (what did St. Paul have to say about this, as he feels unity to be so important), and divisions over leaders were made (again, what does St. Paul think about this; see 1 Corinthians 3). Would bearing with one another (Colossians 3:13) have been both more godly and more prudent? "For it is God's will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil" (1 Peter 2:15,16). But perhaps the Reformation was a just and prudent, and therefore godly undertaking.
Also, I think that it can be argued that the Reformation was a type of revolution (and those living at the time must have thought of it as both a political revolution and a religious renewal, considering how religion was such an important part of the polis), a protestation against the governing authorities. Like many revolutions, the Reformation saw its goal as divine and just. Through this Reformation both church and state might be reformed!, the Reformers thought. But I would argue that it was the Devil who took hold of this thought; it was the Devil who twisted noble goals into ignoble goals in the heart of man, the results being shown much later. The result was that, ever so gradually, these people (all sides, since religion and nation were affiliated in the minds of all involved) combined religious goals with civic goals. This, in turn, brought people to think of their kingdoms and nations as sort of kingdoms of God on earth.
Whether this account is fully accurate or not, I think that it is true in outline. And this combining of the kingdom(s) of man with the Kingdom of God was further twisted by the Devil so that "this immense effort [of reforming the lives of citizens so that all might be godly, as is the goal of the church] seems itself to have obscured the essentials of the faith, and to have led to a substitution of something secondary for the primary goal of centring everything on God" (Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, p.244). Therefore, man's goals (including those of many Christians) become man-centered (anthropocentric), not God-centered (theocentric).
Perhaps thinking about the Reformation is a waste of time. It is not. It is true that we cannot turn back the clock (even if we want to), but we can learn for the future. One thing I have learned is this: Christians (and everyone really, even communist Atheists) must not look for the City of God to come to earth before Christ's return. To confuse the City of Man for the City of God is one of the biggest mistakes that can be made. To consider any man other than Jesus to be the Messiah, the Saviour (capital initial letters) is a tremendous problem, even when it results from good intentions. The Devil can dress up as an angel of light and incite men - who are ever so willing, and even if we are not, we are often dull enough to follow his plans - to build up the Tower of Babel once again.
I believe that many current problems and possibly many future ones can be explained by something like what is found in the remainder of this paragraph if we do not act on lessons learned: The City of Man, taught by the Devil, was inspired by the City of God to reach for a perfection which it cannot have. It is the problem of Babel all over again. In hoping that heaven could be accomplished on earth ( the wish of those who originally and even today want to build the Tower of Babel), men built a city based on their own abilities, which took divine agape, which is the property and great virtue of the City of God, and replaced it with philadelphia (which is also a godly virtue, if it is rightly ordered). But the love of man can only be understood rightly if there is some kind of love for God. As Aquinas points to, Seeing light is to loving God is as seeing colour is to loving man. It is only through seeing light that colour is illuminated (See the Summa Theologica II, II, Q.25, Art 1, IAT). Because it is no longer found in its proper order, love of man, or philadelphia, will also become a deformed, twisted sort of love. And philadelphia turns into self-love, emotivism and the rule of the will. Thus, God has scattered the people who have made Babel, and each speaks his own language; each has his own separate will and wants it alone to be done. However, men, from the after effects of true philadelphia, wanted to make a good society based on fairness. The truth is though, that most men know that they have weak wills and not enough power to get what they want, so they created societies based on rules and contracts so that the greatest amount of people could get the most of what they wanted. But there are and will be men with the power and the will get what they want. This is Nietzsche's Ubermensch,, the Superman, the strong-willed and powerful one who will take over the world. This is an antichrist. Will the righteous allow this continual twisting of what is good?
These troubling thoughts are almost too much for an article that began with considering the good of the Reformation, but they are not too much. However, I admit that this article has been presumptuous and too far-sweeping or all-engrossing, for which I apologize. I also apologize for what might seem to be a melodramatic end. I have sought to bring you on a journey of the mind that I have been on for a while and I have given you the cheep and fast tour.

2) A Glimpse At The City Of God

Continuing on my theme of the City of God and the City of Man, I want to meditate on a quote from Augustine's The City Of God Against The Pagans (otherwise known simply as The City Of God) Book V, Chapter 16. Read it slowly if you have the time. Here is the quote with my commentary (in blue):

[Augustine is trying to explain to his audience that the reason the Vandals (these were barbarians to the Romans) are able to attack Rome and give it so much trouble is not because they have started worshiping the Christian God and have largely turned from the Roman gods. In the process, he has to explain why God, in His providence, made Rome so glorious, even before it was officially a Christian republic/kingdom. He has just made the point that those virtuous Romans of the past sought only human glory, and that they have, in the words of Jesus, "received their reward in full" (Matt 6.2).]
Very different is the reward of the saints [which is not so small, nor as readily tangible and is not received on earth]. Here below they endure obloquy [reproach] for the City of God, which is hateful to the lovers of this world [the City of God itself and the idea of enduring reproach for something not tangible are both hated by the lovers of this world]. That City is eternal [and is therefore not to be found fully in time]; no one is born there, because no one dies. There is the true felicity, which is no goddess [Felicity was the name of one of the many Roman goddesses], but the gift of God [felicity is the gift of God, it is not to be got through honour from men, nor is it to be found by an earthly city. It is bestowed on us by God, we do not earn it]. From there we have received the pledge of faith, in that we sigh for her beauty while on our pilgrimage [the pledge of faith is the Holy Spirit that gives us a longing for the life that will be with God after death and also makes sense of our groaning for the life to come. We are pilgrims, sojourners, viators. This means that Christians are a people "on the way". We know we have not reached the final happiness, our final destination, but it is certainly real to us, and tangible in many ways. Our final joy is not in an earthly kingdom, but with God in eternal life, in the City of God. Christians must be patient on this journey, knowing that good and evil will often be mixed together during this life. Therefore, Christians must cultivate the godly virtues of faith, hope, patience, gentleness, and love]. In that City the sun does not rise 'on the good and on the evil' (Matt. 5:45) [Augustine had earlier made reference to this quote from Jesus. The point was that God has chosen a wise way of rewarding and punishing people during this life. I really recommend reading City of God, Book I, Chapter 8 for a good teaching on this, which helps us to understand why God allows evil to sometimes flourish during this life, while we have to wait for complete felicity in the life to come]; the 'sun of righteousness' (Mal, 4.2) spreads its light only on the good; there the public treasury needs no great efforts for its enrichment at the cost of private property [Having made earlier reference to giving life through birth, Augustine now makes reference to another resource that human cities need: taxes. Augustine highlights life and taxes as deficiencies in the state that need to be supplied, whereas St. Paul draws his readers attention to how the earthly city needs control over the lives and taxes of its citizens (see Romans 13:4-7) to maintain order]; for there the common stock is the treasury of truth [Happiness, truth, no taxes, and no death sounds nice to me. The goods of the City of God are held in common, which cannot be done on earth].

But more than this [that is, the Roman Empire was destined by God to be glorious in its pre-Christian days (and this lesson can be applied universally) not just so that the men would "receive their reward in full" for their human virtues of courage and valour, but there is a further purpose]; the Roman Empire was not extended and did not attain to glory in men's eyes simply for this, that men of this stamp should be accorded this kind of renewal. It had this further purpose, that the citizens of that Eternal City, in the days of their pilgrimage, should fix their eyes steadily and soberly on those examples and observe what love they should have towards the City on high, in view of life eternal, if the earthly city had received such devotion from her citizens, in their hope of glory in the sight of men [the further purpose was to incite Christians to be jealous of the love and virtues that the pre-Christian Romans had for Rome, so that they might be moved toward love of and virtue toward the City of God].

3) D.A Carson: "Open Theology" Blown Wide Open
Whether you know what "Open Theology" is or not, this seminar talk given by D.A. Carson is fantastic and illuminating. You can find the audio file here under Don Carson-Openness of God Theology.mp3. It is worth listening to all the way through.
"Open theology" is a theological position that attempts to solve the problems of there being evil in the world and the problem of predestination. (see Augustine's City of God Book I, Chapter 8 for some of Augustine's thoughts on the mixing of good and evil in the world and Book V, Chapters 9-11 for a decent discussion of God's providence and human will.) It does this by saying that God has chosen to limit himself by making it so that he cannot know exactly what is going to happen ahead of time. Sure, he can guess, and is a good guesser who is prudent and wise, but he doesn't really "know" the future. It is an interesting theological position that ends up with worse problems than double-predestination (the idea that God predestines people both to heaven and to hell).
I agree with Carson on many points, but I don't think on all.

4) J. Wesley on Religious Nuts and Libertines
I picked up John Wesley's A Plain Account of Christian Perfection about a year ago and I have been reading it on and off. It can serve as a good devotional book. In the book Wesley makes a good, intellectual, well-explained, case for what he means by "Christian perfection" and why it is possible to attain to. It reminds me of Andrew Murray's Absolute Surrender in some respects.
Nearing the end of the book, I was pleasantly surprised to find two sections that really struck my fancy. The first section is on what Wesley calls "enthusiasm", but what I have might call "Christian superstition" or "religious nuttery". The second section that I found interesting is directly after the first and has to do with religious libertines, or "antinomians", which are Christians who believe that the law does not apply to them, that they need not pray, nor read the Bible often. In simple English, an antinomian is anti=against, nomos=law. These sections really struck my fancy because I have fallen into ways of thinking similar to these before.
(To find the sections I am talking about, go to an online version, left click on Edit, at the top of your browser, left click on Find in This Page, and type in (without quotation marks) "what is the Second advice". The section on "enthusiasm" is under Q. 33 and the section on "antinomians" is under Q. 34)
There is much that I could draw attention to in from Wesley's discussions on enthusiasm and Antinomianism, but I am of little energy right now. Read them for yourself. Despite my reluctance, I do want to point out that, though many moderns/postmoderns might think that enthusiasm is for extreme (maybe right-wing) Christians and antinomian thinking is for nominal (liberal) Christians, they both spring from a presumption. Presumption makes you think that you have something (have achieved a goal) without having done the work for it (achieving the end without the means).
For enthusiasts, this means that the have an imagination to think that God is specifically talking to them, often through signs, dreams, visions, etc. These people are often thinking that they can read the inner sins of another and they let the other person know. Now, I know people who have been like this, both truly godly and not. Sometimes it is genuine. Wesley tells these people to "test the spirits".
For antinomians, presumption comes in the form of ideas like this: "I don't need to have specific times to pray each day, for I am praying without ceasing;" "every moment is a holy moment, so I need not go to church;" and, "why read the Bible consistently when the Spirit is informing me of his will every moment." This is presumption because the spiritual life is a journey, where we are growing in holiness, though Christ has already imputed it upon us. Antinomianism involves presuming that you are at a spiritual stage in your life that you are not at.

A Hauerwas Sermon, Wesleyan Hymns And Devotion, Aristotle On The State, and Equality Is Evil

Hello. I am happy to present you with an interesting lineup of articles for this posting. If you have time for any of the articles, let it be #4, as it is the most interesting, controversial and perhaps most important article you may ever read in your life. Enjoy.

In This Entry:
1) An Old(ish) Stanley Hauerwas Sermon On Why The Reformation Maybe Was not So Good.
2) Wesleyan Hymns And Devotion
3) Aristotle On States as Natural And The Highest Form Of Community
4) My Thoughts On How Equality Is Often An Evil.

1) An Old(ish) Stanley Hauerwas Sermon On Why The Reformation Maybe Was not So Good.
I was directed to an old(ish) sermon of Stanley Hauerwas' earlier today. The sermon was preached on Reformation Day, October 29, 1995. Although Hauerwas is a an Anglican and Reformation Day is supposed to be a day where all Protestants celebrate breaking away from the Catholic church, in this sermon Hauerwas bemoans the Reformation. The sermon is quite interesting. To read the sermon, click here.

2) Wesleyan Hymns And Devotion
I have recently realized that hymns are fantastic for devotional times. Though contemporary worship songs are often emotional, catchy, and musically decent, they leave something to be desired. I find that a number of more contemporary songs are a little "fluffy" and leave a lot to be desired theologically.
And so I have turned to hymns. Hymns can be musically boring, and are sometimes fluffy as well. But, when a good hymnist is discovered, their works provide for deep devotional times. Recently, I have discovered the hymns of Charles Wesley. Charles Wesley's hymns are poetic, theologically deep, and emotionally deep. If you are interested in doing something different for devotions, then consider going to the Wesley Center Online and looking at Charles Wesley's hymns.
Here is one of Charles Wesley's hymns chosen at random (capital letters are where new lines begin):
1 AUTHOR of faith, to thee I cry, To thee, who wouldst not have me die, But know the truth and live; Open mine eyes to see thy face, Work in my heart the saving grace, The life eternal give.
2 Shut up in unbelief I groan, And blindly serve a God unknown, Till thou the veil remove; The gift unspeakable impart, And write thy name upon my heart, And manifest thy love.
3 I know the work is only thine, The gift of faith is all divine; But, if on thee we call, Thou wilt the benefit bestow, And give us hearts to feel and know That thou hast died for all.
4 Thou bidd'st us knock and enter in, Come unto thee, and rest from sin, The blessing seek and find; Thou bidd'st us ask thy grace, and have; Thou canst, thou wouldst, this moment save Both me and all mankind.
5 Be it according to thy word! Now let me find my pardoning Lord, Let what I ask be given; The bar of unbelief remove, Open the door of faith and love, And take me into heaven.

3) Aristotle On States as Natural And The Highest Form Of Community
I think that people should read and attempt to understand much of Aristotle's works, as I have found them deep, wise, and of considerable importance. If you have not opened up any of Aristotle's works, you should check out his Nicomachean Ethics, or his Politics, as they are more easily understood and more readily applicable than some of his other works.
Here is a most interesting quote from Aristotle's Politics in which he comes to the conclusion that the state is a natural and the highest form of community. Previous to this quote, Aristotle has been talking about smaller groupings of people, such as families and tribes/villages.
"When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society [families, tribes, villages] are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. [By This Aristotle means that a thing is most what it is supposed to be when it has developed fully. For example, a child does not show the nature of a human, for a child is said to be underdeveloped; whereas, a fully grown, intelligent, fully functioning adult is said to be the exemplar of what it means to be a human. Therefore, the most fully developed state of a thing is the end or goal of what a thing is supposed to be. In this case, Aristotle is arguing that the State is the fullest natural consequence of the relational nature of human beings.] For what each thing is hn fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best.
"Hence, it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity."
I wonder what Aristotle would have to say about the United Nations or the European Union. Something tells me that he would think that they might be something of an abomination, or a lesser for of political community than the state. See some of Pierre Manent's thinking on this.

4) My Thoughts On How Equality Is Often An Evil.
Is it just me, or are some things more important than other? For instance, (1) the eye is more important than the little toe, (2) the boss is more important than the worker, (3) the governor is more essential than the civilian; and, (4) the intellect is more important than the emotions.
It is interesting that two of the books on political and societal change that I am reading both mention how important the idea of equality was in distorting society. In Charles Taylor's A Secular Age, one of the main points seems to be that, in the secularization of the West, equality has been a major factor. Taylor points out that this idea of equality began in the church (especially in the Protestant sects), as leadership thought that all people should be attaining to the same high level of piety. The same idea was floating around in society, as it was in the church, for a more moral citizen would make for a better citizen.
This idea of equality (which is now coming into its most fullest form of fruition, where people of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ages are equal) went against an older form of thinking that said that the distinctions between people are important. The idea was that of "hierarchical complementarity". Just as in the body, the intellect should be in charge so that the passions could be guided correctly and so receive the best forms of pleasure, so there were higher and lower levels in society, family, and church. However, it was not simply a matter of higher being better, or more essential (though they were), but that each level served their purpose. For instance, in medieval society, the poor, though low in social status, were thought to be more holy. The point is that, although there is a hierarchy, the levels complement each other and help to provide society, church, family with its fullest array of beauty and excellence.
This thought is looked down upon today. If a person says that a man is the proper leader of the family, many, if not most, would strongly disagree. But this idea of equality, of the great leveling of humanity, has with it a denial of there being an ordered creation, where God has given each thing its proper nature and end. If everything is equal, then there is no order to creation, and then there probably isn't a God. It is very interesting to learn how important equality has become in this secularization process, as Taylor points out many times throughout his book (and he is simply stating this as a fact, not arguing that it is good or bad).
This very same idea is important in Dostoevsky's The Possessed, which is something of a prophetic novel of how Communist ideals began to infiltrate Russian society. "Everything must be reduced to the common denominator of complete equality" says Peter Verkhovensky, one of the main characters. Good and evil, men and women, rich and poor, virtue and vice all become equated by the progressive socialists throughout the story. But even the main theorists in the story know that there must be a ruling class and a "normal human" class, which is, in fact, just how communism happened. It is interesting how this equality often brings along with it the rejection of theism, as it did with Communism, with many socialists, and as is the trend in this "secular age".
It is amazing to think that this idea of hierarchical complementarity, which is so frowned upon by many these days, is what most people have thought for most of history. And I would even go so far as to argue that those who believe the Bible is true must largely accept this hierarchical view of life.
Once again, this idea is expressed in a conversation in The Possessed: "By the way, Shatov insists that if an uprising were started in Russia, it would have to begin with atheism. Maybe he's right. There was a gruff, white-haired old captain among them. He sat in silence, but then he suddenly got up, stood in the middle of the room, and said aloud, but you know, as though he were talking to himself, 'If there were no God, how could I be a captain?' Then he picked up his cap, shrugged, and walked out."
The idea that the captain was voicing, though rather discreetly, in the above quote, is that, if there is no hierarchy, there is no God. If there is no God, then things have not been designed, and therefore, the old idea, that God gave things specific qualities, jobs, and natures, is false. The idea is expressed by J. P. Sartre, in his The Humanism of Existentialism: "When we conceive God as creator, He is generally thought of as a superior sort of artisan… When God creates He knows exactly what He is creating, thus, the concept of man in the mind of God is comparable to the concept of a paper cutter in the mind of the manufacturer" And since Sartre was an atheist, he thought the opposite: "Man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. ... There is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is [each individual] man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence." This, is man's dignity, according to Sartre. And one of Dostoevsky's more extremely atheistic characters, decides that he wants to kill himself, as it is the most fearless act of self-creation, most fearless act of his own will.
But this is overtly un-Christian. In fact, this is anti-Christian! What a discovery!
It seems obvious that, in the Bible, men are to be leaders, political leaders are essential, good is better than evil, and that God is the highest in and beyond all creation. In the Bible, hierarchical complementarity is presupposed. So, perhaps we did something wrong when we decided to go against nature and start equalizing everything? I think that a strong case can be made that the Church Universal needs to go back to a more classical understanding of how creation actually works, for we seem to be conceding more and more as we agree with this idea of equality.
Equality is often an injustice. In stead of equality, we need to be exercising justice. Justice is giving something its due, and involves placing something in its rightful position, according to how God created it.
The church (and humanity in general, but I have more faith in Christ's church) needs to somehow regain the truths of the classical world and yet retain the good points of the post-classical world. How is this to be done? Perhaps I should write a book. This subject would be well worth researching!

Book Review: A Prayer to Our Father

Review: A Prayer to Our Father - Hebrew Origins of the Lord's Prayer

A Prayer to Our Father by Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson is the latest book that I have received as an Ooze Viral Blogger. While I was awaiting the arrival of the book I began to question my choice. Am I really interested in a book that does what so many others have done (that is, commented on the Lord’s Prayer)? After having read the book, I am glad to say that I enjoyed my time with the book, especially since it had so much in it that I did not expect.
A Prayer to Our Father is short (170 page), easy to read, moderately insightful, and quite entertaining. The premise of the book is that a devout, intellectual Jew named Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson and an African American Elder in the United Methodist Church (miraculously?) meet and team up to deliver a book that Chronicles their adventure to better understand the Lord’s Prayer, or the “Our Father”/ “Pater Noster”.
Due to the complex nature of Gordon and Johnson’s meeting, their journey, and the meaning of the Hebrew version of the Lord’s Prayer, the book can be divided into four major sections. The first section comes after the introduction and chronicles how the two very different authors, from two quite different backgrounds were able to come together. In the second section, the authors tell the very interesting story of how they came to be friends, and their discovery that the Lord’s Prayer, and the whole of the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (though this was new to them, this is not new to biblical scholars, though it is often undervalued).
The third section of the book was one of the most exciting parts for me, because it involves the two authors trying to find the actual place where Jesus spoke the Sermon on the Mount, which contains the Lord’s Prayer. The description of the place where Jesus probably preached the famous sermon will stick with me and be an incredible mental picture that will enliven that text for me.
In the fourth part, the authors explain and comment on the Lord’s Prayer using insights gained from the Hebrew text, which often brings clarity and insight to the passage. Though this part of the book was good, it was not great. However, I still believe that the gems that can be gathered from this section make this part of the book worth a glance.
Another major component of the book is that it involves a Jew and a Christian getting together and meeting on common ground. This provided insights that could not have been gleaned otherwise.
All in all, the book was mostly a pleasure to read (though there were moments where it got bogged down and the insight was almost anti-insightful to me). I would recommend this book, especially for the storyline and the discovery of the spot where the Sermon on the Mount was probably preached.

Check out the book's website here.
Listen to a interviews with the authors here and here.

News-Media, Devotional Life, Alexisonfire, and a Controversial News Article

In this blog:
1) News-Media
2) Straight Talk on Devotional Life
3) Alexisonfire's Anti-Christian Album
4) A Controversial News Article About War

1) News-Media
There were a few interesting articles in the Atlantic, October 2009 edition, especially revolving around media. The two articles that I would like to highlight are "The Story Behind the Story" by Mark Bowden and "Cheap Laughs" by Christopher Hitchens.
First, I thought that Christopher Hitchens made an interesting point in his article, "Cheap Laughs". The subtitle to the article reads: "the smug satire of liberal humorists debase our comedy - and our national conversation." Very interesting. Though I enjoy watching Jon Stewart from time to time and although I quite enjoy the Colbert Show and despite the fact that I enjoyed Al Franken's The Truth (With Jokes) I must say that I agree with Hitchens in his critique of how people have allowed these comedians to become major news analysts. Although satire can be very helpful in small doses (especially if it is done well - and a big part of the article is that it is not being done well). But if satire becomes the main source of news, it will help to sour its viewers even more, and this will take away from any possible national unity. Whereas the prophet is traditionally supposed to point out the evil in a nation, he should also give some hope, and he should be concerned about national unity. My basic argument is that when a nation's or generation's diet is solely or mostly or even substantially satirical, that generation or nation will turn on the government that provides a fairly good life. Though Hitchens doesn't seem to make the same argument that I am making, it certainly lies in his premise that the national conversation is debased by satire.
Secondly, Mark Bowden's "The Story Behind the Story" is an article that points to the fact that a lot of news coverage is nothing but the opinions of ideologists who drag up dirt and info, with little true, objective research in order to get their view across.
To make his case, Bowden takes the case of the resent Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court. Do you remember that, during Sotomayor's nomination, the news coverage was against her? The supposed evidence that Sotomayor was a racist, law-making judge were based on words that were directly from her mouth... though - Bowden proves - the statements were greatly taken out of context. But where did this pieces of evidence come from? who drug them up from Sotomayor's history?
It turns out that Morgen Richmond, a right-wing Christian (Sotomayor is a Democratic judge), randomly came across what he saw to be evidence against Sotomayor's judicial integrity and therefore legitimacy. Richmond posted a speech clip on his friend's site and on YouTube and left it at that. He was surprised to see it all over the news during Sotomayor's nomination.
The point that Bowden makes (and he uses only the case of Sotomayor's nomination, I believe) is that the news companies did little of their own research into Sotomayor, but relied on some media clips to stir up some controversial news that was more interesting and less work for them. These clips came from an under-researched, ideologically-driven source. (Granted, everyone is ideologically slanted, but there is a difference between basing your preference on researched truth than simply searching to back up your preference with under-researched 'truth'.)
Considering the power of news-media, it is extremely important that reporters and journalists do due diligence. We expect no less of any other job.
The classic (Platonic-Aristotelian) view of the soul is that the intellect comes first, then the will. The important thing to notice is that it is the intellect that moves the will. The intellect must properly see or perceive what is right and then move the will to do it. Bowden is getting at this same idea when he says, "Journalism, done right, is enormously powerful precisely because it does not seek power. It seeks truth" (p. 54).

2) Straight Talk on Devotional Life
A friend recently asked me what I do to try and keep my faith vibrant. I gave several answers that I believe to be important: Read the Bible consistently, pray consistently, write letters to God, read good authors, and be involved in a small group.
I said that it is up to us to to exert effort and to try and encourage a positive attitude in ourselves. Often, when we are down and not really feeling God moving, we tend to feel bad, and to blame God. Both of these reactions are counterproductive.
If we are feeling bad because of sin, we should remember the words of John Wesley: "And when the sense of our sin most abounds, the sense of his love should much more abound." It is true that we should feel bad about our sins and to do something about them, but to dwell on sin leads us into despair. We must know that, though our sin is great, God's mercy is all the greater and he loves us.
Sometimes when our spiritual lives are down we blame God. We blame God for not being tangible to us, for not being understandable to us, for not making us happy, etc. The truth is though, that God's goodness is the same all the time, so we really have reason to rejoice at all times. Rather than blaming God, it is important for us to continue or start developing our spiritual lives. We are the inconstant ones. We are the sinful ones. We are the ones that tend to pride and laziness. Read 2 Peter 1.3-11 to see what Peter recommends. He says that God has given us everything necessary for a god-ward life of virtue and unity with God, but that we must exercise and build upon our spiritual lives. We must use what God has already provided for us. And the ability to live such a life is given to people who have been cleansed of past sins.

3) Alexisonfire's Anti-Christian Album
Probably few readers of this blog are fans of the edgy band, Alexisonfire (Alexis on fire). However, to those readers who enjoy Alexisonfire, it is might be interesting to note how anti-Christian their new album, Old Crows/Young Cardinals is.
Here is my view on three of the songs on the album. I previously sent this in an email to a friend. There are a few changes here.
1) Born and Raised seems to be a raising of the question: "Is there a Creator who has made everything and therefore a hope of things beyond or is everything here through chance?" Perhaps they are settling with some sort of agnosticism. Fair enough. Perhaps we all feel a pull between wanting something better and yet seeing the indifference in nature. But the ideas of truth, justice, etc. seem to confront us with a universe that is very concerned with goodness.
2) The Northern seems to be a stinging critique (as it should be) of a type of Christianity that seems to be vindictive against people who disagree with it. I disagree with that view as well. It says in the case that it is based on an old hymn. The song reminds me that they are reacting against what Christians might call a "heresy" if we were living before 1700 or so. But now it is just one view among a few. A more proper view is strangely expressed by J.P. Sartre in his play No Exit where people are in hell due to their own vices and choosing. Also, without the punishment of wrongs after death, it is hard to argue that fairness or justice during life are anything but arbitrarily enforced.
3) Accept Crime surprised me as kind of a stupid argument after the at least semi-intellectual songs before it. They seem to be basing their argument for using their bodies as they please (especially in regards to the physical pleasure of sex) on the fact that no outside authority can tell them how to act. True enough. They don't have to listen. I would say that the authority must be internal to be consistent. In fact, I think their authority argument can go against them. It seems that many people use something external to retard sex: i.e. birth control. Also, it often seems to be our culture (an external authority/pressure of sorts) that leads us to consider that using our bodies as we please is the best thing to do. Many fail to consider that, perhaps, there is a greater pleasure (different than physical pleasure of course, which is palpable to even children) that can be grasped through self-control or temperance.

4) A Controversial News Article About War
Here is a link to a controversial article that might help us to reconsider the value of force and the necessity of injustice in war: Civil Fights: Goldstone's recipe for never-ending conflict by Evelyn Gordon.

Pierre Manent on Political Philosophy

Recently, I discovered Pierre Manent, a French political philosopher. Some of his stuff is genius and I will enjoy reading his books one day (hopefully soon, but I have some other to get through first). But for now I am left with an article he wrote for First Things back in May 2000, titled The Return of Political Philosophy.
The article is a bit lengthy and technical, but if you are at all interested in political philosophy or are discontent with modernity and modern politics, take a look at the article. It will be worth your while.

A Thought from the Monster to Ponder

It is amazing how often I think thoughts similar to those of the monster in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein:
"Was man, indeed, at once so powerful, so virtuous, and magnificent, yet so vicious and base? He appeared at one time a mere scion of the evil principle, and at another as all that can be conceived as noble and godlike. To be a great and virtuous man appeared the highest honour that can befall a sensitive being; to be base and vicious, as many on record have been, appeared the lowest degradation, a condition more abject than that of the blind mole or harmless worm."

How do we get from vices (bad habits) to virtues (good habits), from vicious to virtuous?



Three housekeeping notes:

1) A while ago I wrote about a debate on Honduras that was aired on democracynow.org. I had not listened to the debate at that time. I listened to the debate a week or so later and am just now commenting on the debate ever so briefly. Not only was the debate interesting to listen to due to my interest in Honduras, but it was fun to listen to the debate by way of rhetorical skill, like watching two boxers fighting for the title. Either way, I suggest that you give the debate a listen. Find the debate here.

2) Recently, I have been reading A Secular Age by Charles Taylor. A former professor mentioned the book when I was preparing to interview Bart Ehrman. Here is the premise of the book: "The change I want to define and trace is one which takes us from a society in which it was virtually impossible not to believe in God, to one in which faith, even for the staunchest believer, is one human possibility among others." Very interesting, and something that I find very fun and influential to ponder. I am currently 120 pages into the book and I am finding it to be a treat. Despite the continual repetitions (which are necessary, due to the complex history of the subject) and the 850+ pages, people should not be deterred from reading this book.

3) Go to democracynow.org (September 24th, 2009) to find an interview of Michael Moore centering on his new documentary: Capitalism: A Love Story.

Reflections on 1 Corinthians 2.1-5

2.1: Paul did not come to the Corinthians proclaiming (there is that word again) the mystery of God (is this the same as the message about the cross from 1.18?) using rhetorical skills or even human wisdom. Why, then, is this so important nowadays? Or is it that Paul knows that they must see a changed life first, that they must have a change of mind and heart in order to know the wisdom that is from God, in order to delve deeper and deeper into the truths of God?

2.2: Paul chose to live the way of renunciation; he chose to know nothing among the Corinthians except Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. This can mean a few things, but it seems plausible that he chose the way of self-giving and self-renunciation. It can also mean, or this meaning can be added to the last: He preached Christ and His death and self-giving, and did not bother with the convincing words of philosophy or sophistry.

2.3: Paul came with an attitude of a servant to his master. He came to serve the Corinthians. He came to the Corinthians in weakness and fear and trembling. This phrase, “fear and trembling” occurs a few other times in Paul’s letters, namely 2 Cor.7.15 (The proper attitude of the Corinthians to the arrival of Titus…complementary to being obedient), Eph 6.5 (slaves obedient to masters; a slaves attitude to his master), and Phil 2.12 (work out salvation with…). Generally, these phrases seem to connote the proper attitude of a lesser to a superior. Once again, this points to the self-emptying attitude that Paul learned from Jesus Christ, especially in His crucifixion.

2.4: This self-giving is a demonstration of the freedom from and the work of the Holy Spirit. Paul let his life – under the power of the Holy Spirit/ in Christ – that spoke for itself. Paul knew that the message of the cross, the mystery of God (once again: are they equivalent? It seems so here.) was foolishness, that God emptying himself, suffering, and dying was foolishness to the Greek mind. He did not speak what they would have thought of as plausible words of wisdom. Instead, Paul demonstrated what a life in the Spirit is like. His proclamation (once again, this word comes up) was through deeds of the Spirit. The mystery of God, which Paul proclaimed, came by way of a demonstration of the Holy Spirit and power. Now, does this mean that the Corinthian church was mostly Gentile, because earlier Paul was saying how the Jews wanted to see signs (1.22), and the proclamation of Christ crucified (which by now seems to be the mystery of God he was proclaiming because of the frequency of how the word proclamation is being used) was a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1.23). What I am asking is: aren’t these signs to the Jews and therefore this type of proclamation through deeds is not a stumbling block to the Jews. In the end though, I think that Paul is not talking about miracles (though he might be), but about the demonstration of a changes, pure, holy life that gives of itself.

2.5: Paul proclaimed the mystery of God (the self-emptying, self-giving nature of God = the message of the cross, proclaiming Christ crucified) in this manner – through deeds, not through convincing arguments – so that the faith of the Corinthians did not rest on human, intellectual knowledge, but on the power of God. Therefore, it is through the proof of a life lived in the Spirit that Christ is proved. How hard this is to come by when our tendency is towards pride and a demanding of rights! None of us likes to be offended, but if we suffer offense, loss of rights, and give of ourselves in humility and truth – in Christ – we will be God’s true ambassadors to the world. This reminds me of two stories that I heard in the last two days – both at work, speaking with people in the construction/demolition industry. I spoke to one man from Nigeria, Africa who said that the preachers in his country were always one-upping each other in order to attract more converts and more money. He said that you could not be on TV as a pastor unless you were performing miracles, that you would be considered a laughing stock. He told me this because he asked me if my motive for going into the ministry was for money or for what? Another story: a guy I work with told me that he went to Catholic school. During his time at that school a priest told him, in front of his eighth grade class that he was going to hell, not for anything he had done, but because he was born out of wedlock. The actions of Christians can be atrocious. And yes, grace is available for us all, live according to what you believe. If you have stopped acting like a Christian, don’t call yourself one; or, if you call yourself a Christian, you must work out your salvation with fear and trembling, submitting yourself to God, so that He may change you. It is so easy for our sinful nature to rear its ugly head, whether it is in need of approval, in pride, in asserting one’s own rights, in self-pity, in debauchery, in whatever of the dead fruits of the world. We must watch our lives and our doctrine closely (1 Timothy 4.16). Lord, help us. Live in us and change us. Make us more like you.

3) DOERS OF THE WORD

This is the third in a series of talks that I gave at SGA's Crossroads Summer Camp.

Holy Spirit guide us. May we think about these things long after this weekend. Teach us. Make your truths to dwell in our hearts and minds and help us to persevere in training ourselves. Move us to action.
This talk is called Doers of the Word. It only makes sense that after having first learned what faith is and some reasons for belief in Jesus, and after having learned about the importance and beauty of some of the core tenets of Christian belief, that we, along with James, talk about the importance of acting on that belief. In his letter in the New Testament, James was very concerned that his readers would not just hear the gospel and forget that it needs to impact their life. He urges Christians to act on their beliefs. James 1.22-24 says, “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks at (NIV).”
If we look into the mirror in the morning and see that we really need to shave, that our hair is a mess, or that there is a gross red stain on our white t-shirt and then forget about it immediately, and if we go about through our day, we will be regarded as slobs, not get a date, not get the job you are interviewing for, etc. If we look at ourselves in the mirror again, later, we will probably be embarrassed of how we presented ourselves to the world.
God’s words to us are like a mirror, showing us what defects we have; showing us how much God loves us, revealing how we should be basing our life on Jesus’ life. If we think that our appearance is important, how much more important are our actions, our love, our anger, our snootiness? Our attitude, demeanor, and actions are supremely important, but how often do we try to line our lives up with what God reveals to us in the Bible, in sermons, in camp talks, or through the Holy Spirit teaching us something in prayer.
James says that faith without works is dead. The way we act, the way we talk, what we talk about, how we help others, etc. shows our faith. James writes: “Faith by itself, if it has no works is dead” (James 2.17); and again: ”Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe – and shudder” (2.12,19).
How easily we can read or here these words inspired by God and pass them by, as if forgetting to comb our hair after seeing what a mess it is. It is written for us. It must be taken seriously. Even the demons believe in God, just as we do when we read the Bible and then do something counter to what God has taught us.
The question James is asking is this: “Does what you say you believe in actually affect your life?” Take some time to consider this seriously. Does what you say you believe in actually affect your life?
Do you believe that God is good? Then are you joyful, trusting that he takes care of you? Does your worry are anger or grumpiness show that you don’t always believe that God is good?
Do you believe that God is been merciful to all? Are you merciful and generous to others? Do you give even when it hurts? Do you show kindness and gentleness even when someone gets on your nerves? Do you show the same kind of patience that God has shown you?
Do you believe that God is powerful and answers prayers? Then do you ask Him to help you and to empower you to love others, to be kind, merciful, gentle, patient, joyful, self controlled, loving, and peaceful? These are the fruit of the Spirit and God will be faithful to grow these virtues into your life. Are we willing? Do we believe that God can do such a thing?
It is clear in the New Testament that the gospel is not just a personal opinion. It is not something that we can hold when it is convenient. Our faith in Jesus Christ is truth for the whole world to know.
How sad that we have relegated faith to personal opinion! Christians know and believe that Jesus is Lord. That is truth. If the gospel is true it has individual, communal, and universal implications. We all know that faith is not just for Sunday mornings, but is our faith so weak that we are not living out our faith or encouraging it in others? Are we being too timid too scared, or are we just uncertain of what our faith is and how true it is? It is my prayer and the wish of the Holy Spirit that you have grown in your knowledge and confidence that Jesus is Lord. The goal of the teachings on faith this weekend has been to move you to confidence in the gospel, so that you might live it out in your life with confidence, passion, and joy; and so that you will share it with others.

The gospel must be believed and lived by you as an individual. You must understand it. Of course, there will always be questions that we want to solve, and we cannot understand the gospel fully, but, if we claim to be Christians, we need to understand what we believe and we are to live it. If you are studying to be a doctor, an engineer, a pastor, or anything else, you will study hard, persevere, grow in understanding and act on what you have learned and have come to know. It is the same for Christians and their faith.
Christians should study God’s word, the Bible, to learn who God is and who God has called them to be. We must also pray, both talking to God and listening to the Holy Spirit. We must be intelligent, be unafraid to ask questions, to probe deeper and deeper into what it means to be a believer and to learn how great it is to be children of God, through Christ Jesus. This is done out of love, passion, and discipline, not out of trying to appease God. God wants your heart and your mind; your entire self.
A faith that is only intellectual will not impact your everyday life, instead your faith will stagnate and will become dead. Trust me, I have leaned this way before. I have also leaned the other way, where my faith has been a matter of the heart only, not intelligent, but very caring. This type of faith is better than a stagnating intellectual “faith,” but it is not as deep and meaningful.
We must learn to love God with our whole being, trusting God to aid us in understanding and making sure that we teach our hearts to act on His truth (we often have to teach our hearts, for they are stubborn; this requires self-control, will-power, discipline). We must act on what we know, not relying on emotion, but being committed to loving God.
If you believe that God’s love for you, as shown by Jesus, is true, then you must live your life accordingly, or else you are a liar.
Philippians 1.9-11: “And this is my prayer, that your love may overflow more and more with knowledge and full insight to help you determine what is best, so that on the day of Christ you may be pure and blameless, having produced the harvest of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ for the glory and praise of God.”
And again, faith is not only to be practiced on Sundays; instead, we are to be knowingly living in God’s presence all the time. 1 Thess. 5.17 (“Pray without ceasing.”).
If you don’t act on your belief in God, your faith is dead.

But we are not just individuals. As Christians, we are members of Christ’s body, the church. It is easy for us to forget in our day – when we have become so concerned with being “individuals”, when we have lost that communal closeness that has been alive in families and churches in the past – that the New Testament is most often not addressed to individuals, but to the churches as a whole. This means that our faith is corporate as well as individual.
Colossians 3.12-16: “As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; teach and admonish one another in all wisdom; and with gratitude in your hearts sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God.”
Hebrews 10.24-25: “Let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day approaching.”
This leads us to wonder: How does our church function as the body of Christ? Are we forgiving? Do we “bear” with one another when that is the best option? Do we encourage each other in the faith? Do we take time to talk about our spiritual lives with one another? Are we afraid of being spiritual, even in church? I’ve notice that you get mixed reactions from Christians when you say, “God bless” to them. Some are surprised that you would even say it. Others think you are uttering a cliché, and others really appreciate it. What about you? Are we good at encouraging each other in our walks with God, and in our communal walk with God? Does we act on our faith in church? Is our faith proven dead based on our acts in the church?
How do we encourage one another in the faith?

Our faith is also proven dead if we do not encourage others to believe the same. If we don’t think our faith is worth sharing, if we don’t really believe it ourselves, we will not share it, or make it public. Also, if we are timid about our faith, we will be timid about sharing it. Missionary Lesslie Newbigin, making the same point, once wrote: “Missions are the test of our faith that the gospel is true… The test of our real belief is our readiness to share it with all peoples.” This is true. An author would not publish a work of non-fiction unless he or she believed it to be true and accurate. When we are timid about our faith (either in deed or in word) we are showing that we are not too sure of what we believe.
I am not talking about evangelism, per se. I am talking about day-to-day life. In First Peter we see that our everyday conduct is essential: “Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives’ conduct” (1 Peter 3.1).
It is the same for us all. The way we act at work, how we respond to others when we are stressed, our attitudes, our quickness to ask for and to give forgiveness. All these and others, if we live them out consistently, by the power of God, will be evangelizing in the most excellent way.
Of course, we must share the gospel verbally too. It is now act rightly or present the gospel verbally; it is both. Our words will mean nothing if we are not living out our faith, and our acts will mean little if people think it is just because we are “good people,” not knowing why and for Whom we act the way we do.

Clearly, God wants us to act on our faith, else it will die. We must cultivate good habits in our personal, church, and public lives, in order to be faithful to Christ Jesus. This does not happen in an instant, but it will with God’s help, for He loves us and is supremely powerful.
Our first and most important question is this: Have I really put my faith in Jesus Christ, or am I just acting most of the time, with a few “high points”? Do we learn about the Faith and talk to God only on retreats, or is this daily, moment-by-moment, true to our lives?


(I am greatly indebted to my readings of Lesslie Newbigin’s The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. All praise to the Holy Spirit for leading us into truth.)


3) Discussion Questions: DOERS OF THE WORD

• Is there a disconnect between what you think, say, and act? Do you consistently live out your faith, or is your belief in God somehow peripheral?
• How can we input (encouraging ourselves in the faith)?
• How can we in/output (encouraging us as a community of believers in the faith)?
• How can we output (passing on the faith through deeds and words)?
• What good habits can we get into to cultivate faith in our personal, corporate, and public lives?
• Are you embarrassed of the faith, or timid? Or do you continually witness to the truth of the gospel through our actions, thoughts, and words?
• What does this mean to you: “Missions are the test of our faith that the gospel is true”?
• What can we do to move away from an individualistic mentality in your spiritual formation?

2) WHAT WE BELIEVE

This is the second in a series of talks that I just gave at SGA's Crossroads Summer Camp.

Holy Spirit guide us. May we think about these things long after this weekend. Teach us. Make your truths to dwell in our hearts and minds and help us to persevere in training ourselves. Move us to action.
This talk is called What We Believe. After having learned about what faith is and at least one clear reason to believe, it will be prudent to talk about what we believe. The substance of this talk will focus on some main points of our faith. There might be a chance for a question and answer afterwards. Even feel free to ask questions during the talk. If it gets too cumbersome, I will say that we should refrain from questions until later.
We need to be reminded much more often than instructed. Have you ever thought about those stubborn Israelites, traveling from Egypt to the Promised Land? Not long after they had been miraculously delivered from Egypt, they began to complain and to lose faith in God. It’s almost unbelievable, until I think how I similarly forget how good and important God is; there is so much that I have to get done on any given day. We need constant reminders of God’s truth and His goodness.
The content of today’s talk is both revolutionary and millennia old; it is sometimes boring and always fresh; always alive and often difficult to understand. We must be reminded what we believe often, lest we forget.
Even in the New Testament, it was easy to forget. Paul writes, “Remind them” (Titus 3.1), and Peter wrote his second letter to “refresh your memory” (2 Peter 1.13). One of the most helpful talks I can give is simply a reiteration of what you – most likely – already know about the Christian faith.
Often these important, extremely valuable beliefs lose their importance in our lives because we forget about them, or because we don’t really understand why they are important. It is my goal to both state some of the core Christian beliefs and to deepen our understanding of them. I also want to open up these topics so that you will be interested enough to look into them for yourself at some point in the near future.
Can anyone offer up some suggestions about what Christians believe? I will be sharing six of the core beliefs of the Christian faith with you. There are other really important beliefs that I will not be getting to.

First and Second, we believe that God exists and that He is good. The whole Bible teaches and presupposes this. In Genesis, God makes everything good, it is only afterward, when Satan and Adam and Eve exercise their free choice wrongly that things go badly (more on this later). In Job and many of the Psalms, the writers are trying to come to grips with how there can be such suffering in the world with such a good God governing things. We would not be able to question why there is suffering in the world unless there is a good God.
The author of Hebrews puts it this way: Without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would approach Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him” (Hebrews 11.6). How can we approach God if we don’t believe that he exists? We will not because the idea will make little sense to us. And why would we seek Him or love Him unless He were lovable, unless God rewarded those who seek after Him and love Him. That God rewards for honest seeking shows His goodness. If He were not good, he would probably ignore us.
God exists. Recently, there have been a few prominent atheists writing books and proposing atheist summer camps, not unlike this one. Atheists do not believe that God exists.
The Christian faith affirms not only that God exists, but that He makes everything else to exist. We affirm this for at least three reasons (by no means is this exhaustive):
1. As we learned in our last talk, God has revealed Himself in history to certain people. They have seen His miracles. This means that there is some outside power. We can trust these people because of their character. This is an argument from authority. We rely on the testimonies of reliable witnesses.
2. An argument from reason: Even little children know how to appeal to something beyond them: “that’s not fair.” This means that there is an idea of “fairness” among all mankind, an idea that could not come from nature. Also, consider truth, beauty, and goodness. Where do these universal ideas come from?
3. From experience. If miracles have happened to us, and also the H.S. working inside us.
God is good. This is the most important belief for us who know that God exists, that He is real. This is important because if God were not good, we should not love, nor trust, nor obey Him. We will see specific instances of His goodness in the four remaining core beliefs. Keep in mind, though, that if God is not good, we should not believe any of it. In fact, however, the following points will prove that God is immeasurably good!
This idea that God is not good is often expressed like this: “Why do bad things happen to good people?”, or “Why does God send people to hell?”, or “Why are Christians so stuck up?” All of these are challenges to God’s goodness. This is a frequent subject in the Bible. Job. The psalmist. Ecclesiastes. Revelations. All the N.T. epistles. The answer to such questions as these are found in a few of the other core doctrines to be discussed. The basic answer is this: Jesus came and revealed God’s goodness, and we rely on his coming again to set everything right. We long for Him to come and make all things new. This is the promise of God in the New Testament.
There are clues to God’s goodness that we can know right now. For instance, that we rejoice in life: a baby being born, a person being saved from trouble, etc. This shows us that the God who created us is interested in life as well. Also, even during hard times in life, the people who go through these hard times with humility, love, and courage a.k.a. those with good, godly characters have a sense of peace and they learn from their experiences. Therefore, even the bad things in life are seen to be opportunities for those who are following God; this is what the New Testament teaches. (James 1.2-4; Phil 1.27-30; 1 Corinthians. 4.17; Romans 8.18.) There is a certain type of pleasure to be had and goodness to be gained even in difficult times.

Third, humans are sinful and aren’t righteous on their own. There is something wrong with humankind and it hinders them from being with God. God made things perfect in the beginning. There is no way that a good God would make things badly, especially with His wisdom and His power. God gave us the ability to freely choose what to do, but at the very start Adam and Eve sinned and the rest of humanity have been “born in sin” (See Romans 5.12-21). It is not that we wouldn’t have done the same, but that Adam and Eve actually did it. And because they were the first humans, the disease spread to all their children. And we see the consequences: corruption, murders, hatred, desiring the wrong things, considering ourselves Gods, etc. The consequences are all around us and are evident.
Because we stopped obeying God – Who is wise and has ordered all things well – we have brought evil to the world, and we always set ourselves against God. “I am the king of my own life” is a common thought for all.
We need to realize our sinfulness. Often though, it is difficult for us to see the problems of sin clearly, for sin is a perversion of what is good. Of course, we often – though not always – feel guilty when we sin, but we soon forget our evil and we fall into the same old vices, the same bad habits. This shows both how we tend to not want to think of our own sins (they show us how weak we are) and how sin weakens us so that we will continue in sin if we do not continually check ourselves. Perhaps this is partly what Jesus was alluding to in His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) when he said that misplaced anger is murder and that lust is adultery. Serial killers have started out looking at pornography; hardcore drug addicts began with lesser drugs. Most “big” sins have their beginnings in something small.
Those who reply by saying that they are not murderers or adulterers, etc. mean that sins often do not escalate. First, I would disagree. Second, even if we “maintain” a certain level of sinfulness without becoming murderers, etc., we are making our souls ugly, we are offending God, and we are going against our better judgment. In effect, we are killing ourselves and killing our communities. Committing sin is essentially an assault on the goodness of life. If God is good and has ordered all things well, when we sin we are breaking that good, life-giving order, and we are encouraging death. Perhaps this helps us make sense of that famous verse from Romans 6.23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” God is good and he orders things well. He even offers Himself up to erase our sins. He is that good. In contrast, sin is a harsh master. Whenever we sin we are incurring a type of death, however covert and hidden it may be. We all feel that when we feel guilt for our sins.
I offer two helpful thought experiments to help us think about the serious problem of sin more clearly: First, I like to think about how my sins might affect my (future) children. If I am constantly angry without reason, chances are that they might be as well. Then they will have kids and pass this unreasonable anger on. Imagine this goes on for hundreds of years as my family continues to grow. Imagine how this anger will continually break apart the family, causing quarrels and bad blood. Imagine how my family will affect and be viewed by outsiders. The results won’t be pretty.
Our second thought experiment comes from one of my favorite C.S. Lewis books: The Great Divorce. The book is a picture that C.S. Lewis wanted to give of what hell, and heaven might look like. The main point of the book seems to be that the decisions we make on earth really matter towards our eternal life. The book begins with a quote from George MacDonald. Part of that quote is this: “…no plan to retain this or that of the devil in our hearts or our pockets.” This means that God will not accept any of our sin in heaven, that our bad habits on earth will hinder us from heaven. In the story, the main character gets to see how peoples inability to be rid of their sins make them reject heaven. One woman learns that a man who sinned against her is in heaven and she cannot forgive him, her hard heart keeps her from heaven. Another believes so strongly that miracles and God are not real and so he simply rejects all that he sees and hears.
Personally, I wonder about those Christians who were racists. If they see that there are black people and Asian people are in heaven, will they say, “this cannot be heaven; I reject this place”? Or what about those people who live as though God is not good, who hate and live their lives in mediocrity? Are they really showing that they reject God by not believing that He can and wants to change them, that He is really good?
Often the results of sin are difficult to see in the moment. Thought experiments like these that help us to see the long-term and eternal effect of our sins and our bad habits are helpful. They make things more clear for us.

Fourth, Jesus, Christ is the affirmation of all we have said so far and all we will have to say. He is at the very center of our faith.
In regards to God’s existence, Jesus proved this through miracles, and by his own character and commitment to what he said was true even during the great trials of his life. If there has been one person who has known the Father, it is certainly Jesus.
In regards to God’s goodness, we know that Jesus was and is God. Colossians says, “For in Him al the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (1.19); and, “He is the image of the invisible God” (1.15). So, if there is any visible example of what God is like, we believe that Jesus showed us exactly what God is like. So, if we see that Jesus is good, we know that God the Trinity is good. When you look at Jesus’ life you are struck with his wisdom, love, mercy, goodness. God’s goodness is especially shown in that Jesus gave his life so that we might find life in Him. He did this while we were still sinners.
Jesus Christ was the answer to the problem of suffering and evil in the world. To those who believe in Jesus, asking for forgiveness, he has mercy, and Jesus suffered so that we would not have to. Jesus’ answer to those who believe in Him is: mercy, a giving of His life for us. He shows Himself to be both good and just. The answer for the problem of suffering in the world to those who choose to continue in evil is this: They must suffer the just consequences of their actions and live eternally apart from Him, in hell. But even to the “perishing”, God waits patiently, and holds back judgment so that they have time to repent (See 2 Peter 3.9 and Romans 2.4). God’s answer to those who accept Him and reject Him is the same on two meaningful levels: mercy and justice. But isn’t God sending people to hell unjust, something archaic, not to be believed anymore? More on this later.
Therefore, in regards to sin, Jesus is the answer. No man could save the world from sin, but only man can suffer for man for justice to be paid. So God came as a man to mankind. He did not despise us, considering us as dirt, much lower than Him, and worthless. Instead, He showed His goodness ultimately when the Son became man. Even though man had been defeated by sin and even though everyone deserves death, Jesus came and overcame sin. We would not be willing, or able to undertake such a project.
Jesus saving us from sin is also just because He did not force us from sin, apart from our own choosing, but He has let us choose freely. This again shows God’s goodness along with His justice, which is an expression of His goodness. Jesus also revealed God’s wisdom in dealing with the fundamental problem in the universe: sin. In taking our sins upon Himself, Jesus has been both supremely merciful and supremely just (sin was punished, and man is set free).
We have not addressed the next two topics, but Jess is the key to these as well. In regards to the Trinity (which is our next core Christian belief), Jesus opened us up to know God as Trinity, which we would have never known on our own. We need God to reveal this truth to us.
Last, in regards to the last things, Jesus gives us hope, because there is life after death with God. We know this because Jesus rose from the dead, as a type of proof that there is life after death and vindication for the righteous (see First Corinthians 15.23, Colossians 1:18, Revelations 1.5.)

Fifth, is a particularly unique and often puzzling belief: God is a Trinity. Christians are monotheists (that is, we believe in one God), yet we believe that this one God is Three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I enjoy remembering how belief in the Trinity came about. First, the disciples, who were strict monotheists, who prayed to Yahweh, cam into contact with Jesus. Having lived with Jesus for three years, having hear his teachings, witnessed the miracles, death and resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the disciples began to worship Jesus as they had only allowed themselves to worship God. They had such an experience of Jesus that they were compelled to praise Him, not as a good man, or as an angel, but as God! This must have been very strange for strict Jews! It must have been a strong and real encounter with Jesus that they had, not something fake, dreamt, or simply hoped.
The disciples then knew God as Father and Son. They also knew that Jesus had taught them about the Holy Spirit. All three were mentioned in the great commission: “Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). In other words, baptize them in the name of God, which involves all three of these names: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It took about 350 years for Christians to come to an understanding of their tendency to worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The issue was terrible complex and confusing for early Christians and it can be the same for us, even after 2000 years. However, it is just as true today as it was in Jesus’ day, and, in fact, for all eternity.
It might be helpful to talk for just a moment about each Person in the Trinity. We know the Father as Creator. We know Jesus, the Son, as the one who was sent to reveal to us what God is really like (as we mentioned earlier). Jesus, the Son, died, and was raised from the grave so that we might die with Him and rise with Him in newness of life.
After Jesus ascended into heaven, to be at the right hand of the Father, He sent the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, so that Christians would be instructed, unified, and love and obey God. The Holy Spirit has come to teach us all truth (John 16.12). The Holy Spirit illuminates us to know what we do not know on our own. He inspires and equips us with the tools to live a holy, God honouring life.
Here is a quote from a very wise man who lived at about the time when Christians were trying to better understand the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Here, Basil of Caesarea explains a little bit about the Holy Spirit to us:
[The Holy Spirit is] wholly present to everyone [that is, as individuals] and wholly everywhere at the same time. He is shared without being affected [unlike cake]; He remains whole and yet gives Himself in the sharing, like a sunbeam whose warming light shines on the one who enjoys it as though it shone for him alone, yet it also lights the land and the sea, and mingles with the air. (From “On the Holy Spirit” or de Spiritu Sancto)
As important as this belief is, I wonder how important it is in our lives and churches?
So much for our discussion on the Trinity and on the Holy Spirit in particular. Now let us move on to the last of the core Christian beliefs that we will be addressing.

Sixth, and lastly, let us discuss an important Christian doctrine that is often neglected these days: Heaven and Hell. The big truth for us to understand about life after death is that we must understand that our decisions in life really matter. We addressed this earlier when we talked about the impact of sin.
Here are the basics of Christian belief on heaven and hell: Those who have faith in God will have eternal life with God. Those who reject God will have eternal death, which is separation from God.
But there are some big questions about this. One important question goes like this: “How can a good God condemn people to hell?” I think that Christians can answer the question – as Jesus might – with another question: “Why have certain people chosen to go to eternal punishment? Why have many people consistently chosen bad thoughts and actions?”
Like I have said: Our decisions matter. To think that God will smooth everything over at the end of time, despite some people not wanting God, despite that people have lived lives that reject God in words, action, and thought. Our decisions matter. This means that two things are very important:
1) Our minds and thoughts that help us to know the truth and therefore inform our decisions.
2) Our wills and actions, for we must act out what we have decided is the best to do.
In his book, James V. Schall writes: “The criteria given at the final judgment are mostly ones of relation to others – feeding the hungry, turning the other cheek, even sacrificing one’s life for one’s friends, though in other places we are admonished also to know the truth to be free” (p.198).
Therefore, us believing the truth that Jesus Christ is God and our acting out our beliefs by leading virtues lives in the Spirit, modeled on Jesus’ life, are both important. This helps us to answer another, yet similar, question: “Why does God send good people to hell?” Here is a clue: both knowing and doing are essential. Both knowing the truth and doing what is good are essential.
Here are some quotes that might help, on Hell, from Josef Pieper’s book The Concept of Sin:
When discussing “eternal punishment” one must clearly distinguish the images that are meant to make the essence of the matter visible to the imagination form the essence of the matter itself. But if the essence of damnation is rightly characterized as separation from the infinite Good, which God himself is, then the punishment only consists in not possessing what one has already expressly renounced. “Hell” should not be thought of as a dungeon inside which one has been forcibly locked up against one’s will. The bolt on the door that seals off the way into the open air is not located outside, but inside, the person. It is the stiff-necked will of the damned person himself, a will that turns away from God, which has closed the gates of hell in on itself.
…
Hell consists in man being taken at his word when he refuses to love.
…
Dostoyevsky: What is hell? I think it is the pain of no longer being able to love.
…
C.S. Lewis: In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell is itself a question: “What are you asking God to do? To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.
…
Forgiveness can be vouchsafed only to the one who wants it, or at least is willing to accept it, [this] is perfectly obvious to everyone.
On this topic of heaven and hell, there are many books. For a fairly quick, quite insightful book, read C.S. Lewis’ The great Divorce, which I spoke of earlier when I was talking about the consequences and deadliness of sin. The book really helps us to see how decisions made in this life might affect you in the life to come.\
There are those who like to do evil, who will reject God. This means that eternal death, a.k.a. hell is for those who have chosen to hate God, through how they have lived and acted. God will punish evil, will vindicate the righteous, and will “make all things new.” We will see, especially in the end, that God is good and just. We believe this in faith, believing that Jesus is God and that He showed His goodness in His life and death.

In summary, I have tried to bring light to our faith, by highlighting six core Christian beliefs: 1) God’s existence, 2) God’s goodness, 3) Humanity’s great sin problem, 4) Jesus as the key to all Christian belief, 5) The Trinity, especially the Holy Spirit; and, 6) Heaven and Hell.
There are many important beliefs in the Christian faith, but we must know and understand at least these core beliefs to have a coherent faith. I encourage you to take one of the points that interests you, or which you do not understand very well and to do some praying and some research. Read some books; ask pastor ken about it, etc. Know what you believe, why, and what it means.

Applications:
1) Rejoice.
2) Research and contemplate.
3) Share with others.

Prayer
See if anyone has questions…or perhaps it would be better for some songs of response.
Hand out discussion questions. Point out Apostle’s Creed.



The Apostle’s Creed


1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and the life everlasting.
Amen.
2) Discussion Questions: WHAT WE BELIEVE

• Do you understand the importance of God’s goodness in all this?
• Which of the points did you not know about before, if any?
• Which of the five points impacted you the most?
• Which do you struggle with or still have questions about?
• Was this helpful for you to understand the faith a little more? How so or why not?
• Do you feel more comfortable with your faith after having heard the talk?
• Which point would you like to focus your prayers and thoughts on over the next few months? What are some steps you can take to understand more?

Talk 1) WHAT IS FAITH? and SOME REASONS TO BELIEVE

This is the first in a series of talks that I just gave at SGA's Crossroads Summer Camp. The main theme: Faith.

Holy Spirit guide us. May we think about these things long after this weekend. Teach us. Help us to know and love you more and more. Move us to action.
This talk is called: What is Faith? and Some Reasons to Believe. The title needs no explaining. There might be a chance for a question and answer afterwards.
So, what is faith? (Really ask.) What does faith mean to you? Put it in your own words? Why do you believe? What do you want to know about Christianity? Are you comfortable with your faith? Do you share your faith?
In my testimony last night I shared with you how I became confused over matters of faith, how my heart grew cold, how I began to sin against God. Although an apparent “leader”, my faith was immature, my knowledge of God was weak. As it was the Apostle Paul’s goal to “warn and teach everyone in all wisdom, so that he could present everyone mature in Christ” (Colossians 1.28), so it is my goal to teach wisdom to you, that you may become mature, not childish in your faith, so that empty preaching and empty “truths” do not “take you captive” (Colossians 2.8).
It is true that the Christian faith can be so easy to live that a child is the exemplar, according to Jesus: “Unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 17.2). But it is not for us adults – for we are adults – to be childish in our understanding of the faith. Yes, we should be like children in our trust, in our humility, in our relationship to our Heavenly Father. But much of the New Testament makes clear that we must move on from the first, simple understanding of the faith. The author of Hebrews says, “Let us go on towards perfection, towards maturity, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation” (Heb. 6.1-2). How many of us know what the foundation is? What does that prove to us? The same is repeated elsewhere in the New Testament (Heb 5.13,14; Pet. 2.2), and it makes sense. We must grow up; we must mature in our faith. We must move on from the first, simple understandings of the faith.
And we can do this – we can grow up in the faith – as the Holy Spirit teaches us more and more. Childish knowledge in the faith is fine for children, but we will begin to fall away if we do not continue to grow in Christ; both verses from Hebrews above speak of childish knowledge of the faith (not childlike faith) while warning against falling away. The reason is this: growth in understanding is essential to any relationship.
I was first attracted by Halyne’s qualities: her loyalty to friends, her strong will power, her sense of respect for others, her kindness, her servant-heart. Our relationship would not have even begun if I had not seen this in her, if I had not observed and known these things about her. (By the way, pay attention to how seeing and knowing relate in this talk.) Then Halyne had to grow to discover a few things about me. Then I learned about her family, and she about mine. We learned about each other’s past. After more time we learned about each other’s hopes and dreams. And the journey continues. We are learning little things like how to share stories as a couple, how much personal time we need, etc. If we stopped learning about each other, our relationship would surely stagnate and die, maybe not outwardly, but certainly inwardly. We would grow to have a certain amount of coldness towards each other. Certainly, there may be a stage where couples stop learning about each other, but I doubt it.
The same is true of our relationship with God. If we stop growing in our understanding and faith of Him, or if our faith becomes confused, our relationship with Him will certainly grow cold, as the author of Hebrews warns us.
Understanding is a “diving in,” it means “to know someone or something from the inside.” Our initial attraction to others is how we see them act, or how they look. Then we begin to know them in deeper and deeper ways. Our love for that person grows as we begin to understand them more and more (that is, of course, if they have good qualities, for if they have bad qualities, we would surely not want to marry them…that would be asking for a world of trouble).
Notice here what understanding and love have to do with each other. The more we begin to understand someone, if they are admirable, the more we will love them. In this way, by learning more and more about God, who is the most admirable, we will love Him more and more.
Can you want, desire, or love something or someone you don’t know about, that you don’t even know exists? No. Can you love someone you don’t know? Impossible. It is only when we get to know someone that our love for them develops. It is only as we understand someone that our love starts to grow – if they are admirable. Our love only grows as our understanding grows. The same is true with God: when we begin know Him more and more, we will begin to love Him more and more. This is because God is good. We would not love Him if He was not good. And so, in understanding God more and more, in having an intimate understanding of God, our love for Him will become more passionate. Thus, we will begin live out the greatest commandment more and more: To love God with all that we are.

But what does this talk of understanding and loving God have to do with faith? Perhaps you already see the connection. Notice that, if we don’t have faith, we cannot love Him or please Him. Hebrews 11.6 says, “without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would approach Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him” In other words: how can we approach Him if we don’t know that he exists? And why would we approach Him unless He is good (rewards honest effort)? Here, the author of Hebrews is saying what we said earlier: We must first believe that God exists and second understand that He is good and admirable, or else we cannot please Him. How could I please Halyne if I didn’t know her and her good qualities, for I would have never started a relationship with her in the first place unless I had known her? And so, without belief that God exists and that He is good, we cannot love God. But the more we come to believe that God is real and that He exists, the more we will love Him.
The problem with knowing God is that he is invisible and doesn’t always communicate with us in ways we would like: i.e., audibly talk to us, or show us physical body language, etc. But, there was a time when God came to earth, in the incarnation of Jesus. And the Bible makes clear that Jesus revealed to us the mystery of who God is and the mystery of God’s plan for the renewing of the world. Colossians 1.19 tells us: “For in Him [Jesus] the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” and later in that letter Paul tells us that “the mystery that has been hidden throughout the ages and generations…has now been revealed to his saints” (Col. 1.26) and that Christ is the “knowledge of God’s mystery (Col 2.2). But we have another problem: Jesus lived about 2000 years ago. And now, we can’t see God. How can we understand Him? Imagine this question from someone who does not believe in the authority of the Bible: How can you claim to understand who Jesus is if you have never seen Him or even heard Him say anything to you? How can you claim to know God?
Now, there are lots of ways we could go from here. We all know that our relationship with God is not troubled (much) by not seeing Him or hearing Him, and that we hear from Him in many different ways and that we see Him in many ways, but I want to take the opportunity to explain something fundamental about faith here. Let me explain what I want to get at using a scenario: Imagine seeing the robbery of a grocery store take place. In fact, you were there when the robber came in with his gun. You saw him take the cash from the till and drive off. They were stupid and had no mask on. You are a first-hand, eyewitness.
Now, imagine that the eyewitness is someone else and you are a member of the jury at the trial of the bank robber. The witness, the person who saw the crime gives their testimony. It is up to you as the jury, who can only hear about the crime (there were no cameras), to believe or not believe the eyewitness.
Notice the two parties involved: 1) the eyewitness, who has seen the crime taking place, and 2) the jury member who only hears what has taken place. Knowing something like 1+1=2 can be compared to seeing, like that eyewitness really saw the crime. 1+1=2 is obvious to us. We can take one finger on one hand and another finger on the other hand and see that there are two fingers there. We can see it for ourselves. But faith is not like that. Belief in Jesus and His goodness are not quite so obvious. Faith is compared to hearing, like the hearing of the jury member. Make a mental note: Knowing is likened to seeing and the eyewitness; faith, or believing, is likened to hearing and the jury. Also note that, if the jury believes the testimony of the eyewitness, he or she will act accordingly and cast a vote to convict the criminal of the crime.
Notice that both knowing something for sure, as an eyewitness, as a “seer”, and believing as a member of the jury, as a “hearer” as affirmations. They both say “yes.” Knowing and believing both affirm that something is true. Doubt, on the other hand is not affirming.
The Apostle Paul often uses this same type of language that we have been using (knowing=seeing; believing/faith=hearing): “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Corinthians 13.12). Instead of comparing faith to hearing, St. Paul compares faith to “seeing dimly” (remember what mirrors must have been like in that day). The analogy of knowing to seeing remains. St. Paul is saying that our knowledge of God is imperfect during this lifetime, that, in fact, we live by faith, not sight; but he is looking forward to seeing God after death, to knowing God.
And so faith is an imperfect form of knowing. There is an imperfection about it. If it was perfect, Paul would not have compared it to seeing dimly, as in an old-fashioned cloudy mirror. That faith is an imperfect type of knowing is a disconcerting thought at first, but we must take hope in the fact that Paul recognized this, and so did the author of Hebrews in his definition of faith.
They took hope, as we can, in this thought, which was expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 1500s:
Other things being equal sight is more certain than hearing; but if [the authority of] the person from whom we hear greatly surpasses that of the seer’s sight, hearing is more certain than sight: thus a man of little science is more certain about what he hears on the authority of an expert in science, than about what is apparent to him according to his own reason: and much more is a man certain about what he hears from God, Who cannot be deceived, than about what he sees with his own reason, which can be mistaken. (S.T. IIa, IIae, Q4, art.8, Reply to objections 2 and 3)
Thomas compares faith to a student learning from a teacher. The student has limited knowledge, where the teacher has lots of experience. Therefore, it is better for the student to trust the teacher than to only go on with his limited knowledge. (For example, hw many of us could know much about our solar system without trusting in scientists who study the solar system?)
So we need not worry about faith being an ”imperfect knowing.” As I said before, even St. Paul said so. But it is not as if our faith is groundless, for the jury must have good reason to believe the eyewitness.
In fact, though we rely on our personal experiences with God, our consciences, our hearing of the Holy Spirit, and our miraculous experiences, we rely on the Bible for our knowledge of God’s specific actions in history, including the incarnation of Jesus, and we rely on the Bible for our belief that Jesus is God, one of the three Persons of the Trinity, and we rely on the Bible to affirm that God is merciful, that He will judge the living and the dead, and that Jesus died for our sins so that we can live with God forever, having eternal life. And so we, like the jury, rely on the eyewitnesses of the apostles and those who saw and heard and touched Jesus, both before His death and after His resurrection. We rely on these people, who were appointed by God, to accurately tell us of Jesus’ character, of his teaching, of his deeds and miracles, that Jesus was worthy of worship of a kind of which only God is worthy.
It is important to remember that a group of people were actually with Jesus when he did miracles, and saw Him and really experienced Jesus after He has risen from the grave. These are not myths, they actually happened. This is important to know. Peter says:
For we do not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received honour and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to Him by the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is My Son, My Beloved, with Whom I am well Pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.
So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. (Second Peter 1.16-19)
Notice that Peter was an eyewitness. Just as the jury judges the credibility of the eyewitness based on the character of the witness and other criteria, so we can trust in the witness of Peter, who died because of his faith in Jesus, as did Paul and many of the other apostles. Some believe that the apostles hallucinated when they saw Jesus risen from the grave. First of all, this seams flat out ridiculous, since Jesus was seen by man, but also, would you be willing to stake your life on a hallucination? And what are the chances that that many people had similar hallucinations? The apostles staked their lives (the very way they lived their lives changed) and deaths (they were willing to die for preaching Jesus) on the reality of what they experienced in Jesus Christ. Obviously, Peter had really seen, touched, heard, experienced Jesus and had known Jesus’ character and goodness.
As both an aside, and yet an integral point, notice how important character is to witnessing. Are we living this kind of life, sure of our faith, and living life virtuously? How can we be good witnesses if we are not? How can we expect people to believe in Jesus when they have bad characters to look at?
As another aside and yet integral point, noticed how encouraged we are as believers when we read these words of Peter, that he actually saw, heard, touched, knew Jesus. We should be unashamed to share similar faith stories with one another. This will help us to “be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith,” as St. Paul wanted to encourage in Romans 1.13, which is a part of the theme verse for this year’s Crossroads group.
Notice also that Peter tells us to believe his message (“you will do well to be attentive to this”), because it lights our way. Notice how seeing is used here. We can only be believers, for we did not see Jesus working miracles, etc. We can only know imperfectly, but the words of the apostles shine light into the darkness. The fact that Peter and the other apostles really experienced Jesus, and that they can be trusted, allows us to believe firmly, with the same assurance as someone who knows that 1+1=2.
The Apostle John also uses this real experience of Jesus as a basis for believing his words:
We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life – this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us – we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. (First John 1.1-3)
By now you may be asking, “What is the point of all this?” Or perhaps the point is obvious to you. There are a few great points that come out of this: 1) the nature of faith as imperfect knowledge, yet superior to simple, personal knowledge; 2) that growth in understanding and faith in God lead to a more intense love for Him, so it is worthwhile to grow in faith; 3) some of the teachings of Scripture have surely become clearer; 4) we have been reminded that our character is essential to our testimony; 5) we have seen how we can encourage each other in the faith, through stories of God’s activity in our lives, also through teaching, and through the reading and understanding of Scripture; 6) we can now “give a reason for the hope that is inside you” as First Peter 3.15 says we should always be prepared to give.
There are other reasons to trust the Bible besides the character and lives of Peter and John and Paul, just as there is more than one reason for a jury to believe an eyewitness. We won’t talk of these in detail. The coherency of the beliefs, the “opening up” of our person when our faith grows, the beauty, and inherent goodness in the faith are all corroborating reasons to believe in Jesus as Lord and God, and that the words of the Bible are authoritative. There are many more reasons too, but we will not discuss them here.
We should now take a look at the classic, biblical definition of faith. The classic biblical definition of faith is found in Hebrews 11.1. I have chosen not to approach this text first because we tend to read over it, assuming that we understand it because we’ve read it so many times; a classic confusing of familiarity with understanding.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen,” says Hebrews 11.1. Notice the idea of seeing is present again. Although we do not see God, nor fully understand Him, nor did we see Jesus do miracles, or rise from the dead, nor have we seen God “make all things new,” or resurrect the bodies of believers, yet we still are convinced that these things have happened (the historic happenings of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection), are happening (making all things new), or will happen (resurrection of the dead). Though belief is imperfect knowledge, yet it still shares the same certainty as knowledge (“assurance”, “conviction”). It is something that we believe that changes the way that we live our lives. We will talk about faith and action in the third and last talk, but for now I will quote a line from Lesslie Newbigin’s book The Gospel in a Pluralist Society: “Missions are the test of our faith that the gospel is true” (p.127, 1898, Eerdmans). By this, the former missionary in India means that if we really believe the gospel, we will publish our love for God both in our actions and in our words, in acts of love, and in sharing our faith with others; we must not be ashamed of the gospel, (Romans 1.16; Second Timothy 1.8) for God’s power comes for salvation of all (it is universal), even if it leads to us suffering for our faith, as it meant for the apostles and the early Christians.

Now, we should briefly talk of two vices, or bad habits of the mind, that hinder faith in us. We can encourage “blindness of mind” and “dullness of mind” in our lives. Blindness of mind can come about because we deliberately turn away from the truths or consequences of faith, but this rarely happens. More often, blindness of mind comes as a result of distractions in our lives. We get distracted knowing God more intimately through love of sleep, of watching TV, etc. There are many more habits, even more serious habits that distract us from knowing God more. We must intentionally seek a more profound faith, as God wishes to grow this in us. It takes a lot of work to get rid of old habits and replace them with new ones, but it is necessary for a life that is more full. These things distract us and hinder us from our goal of knowing God more fully, just as excess weight slows down a marathon runner; “Let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us” (Hebrews 12.1). And we do need perseverance, and the encouragement of each other in order to keep on those good habits.
Secondly, “dullness of mind” can hinder our faith. Some are naturally dull. It is a weakness of mind; an inability to perceive something without copious amounts of explanation. This can be worked on. It takes a long time for many of us to learn something complex, such a new language. The same is true of understanding the faith. It is like the author of Hebrews just reminded us: it takes perseverance. It takes much prayer to God for understanding until we really start to get it.
To sum up: 1) the nature of faith as imperfect knowledge, yet superior to simple, personal knowledge; 2) that growth in understanding and faith in God lead to a more intense love for Him, so it is worthwhile to grow in faith; 3) some of the teachings of Scripture have surely become clearer; 4) we have been reminded that our character is essential to our testimony; 5) we have seen how we can encourage each other in the faith, through stories of God’s activity in our lives, also through teaching, and through the reading and understanding of Scripture; 6) we can now “give a reason for the hope that is inside you” as First Peter 3.15 says we should always be prepared to give; 7) we must act on our faith if we really believe it, even if it means persecution; if it is true, then it is even worth dying for; 8) we must avoid the temptations to be lazy and to give up on our relationship with God; there are many distractions and much difficulty along the way, but the end result is worth it; 9) although we have often been compared to the jury who judges the words of the Scriptures, it must be said that, when we believe in Jesus as God, his words end up judging us, showing us how to be more like him, encouraging us to destroy sinful habits, for God did not call us to impurity, but in holiness” (Colossians 4.7).
Let me conclude with this: it is worth it. To continue the above quote from Hebrews: “Let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God” (Hebrews 12.1,2). In the next talk, among other truths, we will learn of the joy that awaits us.
End with a prayer.
See if anyone has questions…or perhaps it would be better for some songs of response.
Hand out discussion questions.

(I am greatly indebted to my readings of Josef Pieper (Faith, Hope, Love) and of Thomas Aquinas (S.T. IIa, IIae) for this understanding of faith. All praise to the Holy Spirit for leading us into truth.)

1) Discussion questions: WHAT IS FAITH? and SOME REASONS TO BELIEVE

• What do you think about “growing in understanding,” of deepening your faith in God? Is it true that we are supposed to understand our faith more and more? Or is it better to have a “simple” faith?
• Have you ever had a time in your life when you’ve questioned your faith? Can you tell of that time?
• In your words, what is faith?
• Does faith as “imperfect knowing” make sense to you? Is it biblical? Does the analogy of seeing and hearing as knowledge and faith make sense to you? Why or why not?
• How can “imperfect knowing” (i.e. faith) be better and more trustworthy than “knowing for yourself”?
• Can we trust the words of the Bible? Why?
• Are you more comfortable with your faith after this talk? Or perhaps less? How so?
• Do you think you would be more comfortable talking to others about your faith after this talk? Why or why not?
• Will you be more comfortable talking with each other about matters of faith after this? Will you be more confident?
• Why do you think we can be embarrassed or timid when it comes to talking about our faith in Jesus Christ? Does this seem to be consistent with our actions or while we are singing praises to God in church? Do we have the same boldness inside and outside of church? Are we confident in either place?
• Do you have bad habits that keep you from developing your relationship with God? Sin? Laziness? Apathy? Or is it just too difficult to understand the Bible or is it too boring to read? How can we get rid of these bad habits (blindness and dullness of the mind)?
• How is your prayer life? Do you spend time cultivating your relationship with God through prayer?